SPRINGFIELD -- The chairman of the Springfield's civilian police review board has written a letter defending its work, amid a wave of criticism over the city's handling of recent police misconduct allegations.

"I will continue my efforts to lead the CPHB to assure the proper application of Constitutional standards required by courts and which all police officers must follow," Community Police Hearing Board chairman Hector Zavala wrote in a letter to The Republican and MassLive. "No one on the CPHB is afraid of telling it like it is when it comes to making findings that will hold up under legal review when the facts show an officer's conduct has crossed the line, or telling a complainant that their allegations have not been substantiated."

Police discipline in Springfield currently has both a civilian and a departmental phase. The seven volunteer members of the Community Police Hearing Board, which was established in 2010 by the executive order of Mayor Domenic Sarno, review complaints against officers, hold hearings and recommend discipline to Commissioner John Barbieri. Barbieri then makes the final ruling, deciding whether officers will be punished and what form that discipline will take.

It is an arrangement that has worked well, members of the board, Sarno and Barbieri say. Barbieri has said that he has always followed or exceeded the disciplinary recommendations of the CPHB, and at a recent public information session before the Old Hill Neighborhood Council, board member Paul Phaneuf said the board had never faced outside pressure to alter its findings.

"Nothing's whitewashed here," Phaneuf said.

But an increasingly public series of allegations about the city's response to police misconduct have sparked calls from city councilors to return power to a civilian police commission - a move that would abolish both Barbieri's disciplinary authority and the role of board itself.

Det. Gregg Bigda was caught on video threatening to plant drugs on a juvenile suspect and crush his skull - an outburst that earned him a 60-day suspension, and which was not publicly disclosed until it was reported by The Republican. Ten city councilors have signed a letter calling for more transparency in the case and questioning why Bigda was not fired. Barbieri has said that he did not believe a firing would survive civil service arbitration.

The Bigda scandal has also harmed prosecution efforts, with the dissolution of at least one drug case reliant on the testimony of officers linked to the incident. Federal and state authorities are now reviewing the allegations against Bigda.

No finding has yet been made in that case, which has been referred to the Hampden County District Attorney's Office for investigation. Once that investigation is complete, it is expected that the accused officers will have hearings before the Community Police Hearing Board.

And on Oct 14, federal magistrate judge Katherine A. Robinson allowed a police brutality lawsuit against the city to proceed, ruling that "A reasonable finder of fact could also infer that there were flaws in the city's investigation of civilian complaints that demonstrated deliberate indifference to the risks posed by officers against whom large numbers of civilian complaints about excessive use of force had been made."

In a prepared statement earlier this week, City Councilor Justin Hurst described the CPHB as having "failed miserably" and as a "sham." In the Bigda case, the accused officer waived his right to a hearing, meaning that Barbieri made his disciplinary decision without a civilian recommendation - a scenario that Hurst said demonstrated the weakness of the existing board.

"What purpose does the CPHB serve if Commissioner Barbieri gets to pick and choose which police misconduct cases come before them for a recommendation?" Hurst said. "It's simple ... the cases in which Barbieri feels that the CPHB will disagree with him on will not be brought before them and the general public will continue to be led to believe that in most cases the CPHB and the Commissioner are in agreement."

But in the letter to the editor Zavala wrote, he defended the work of the civilian board, saying it had been misrepresented in media coverage and investigates each case with integrity.

"We are city residents who want to make sure that citizens who complain have a voice when they make an allegation of police misconduct, and that officers are treated fairly when they are facing disciplinary charges. None of us would tolerate treating anyone who comes before us, regardless of background, with anything but the respect and courtesy that each human being is entitled," Zavala wrote. "We want every person who comes before us to know they will be treated equally, with courtesy, and with an open mind. These are the values we keep in mind when we are doing our job reviewing every citizen's complaint that comes into the Police Department."

Sarno also defended the board this week, saying he had faith in its investigations and rejecting claims that there is a systemic problem with police brutality in the department.

Zavala, an attorney and former prosecutor, wrote that the makeup of the board reflects the city's diversity, both in demographics and professional background. The board is empowered to review the internal affairs investigation of each complaint it considers - a responsibility it takes seriously, Zavala wrote.

"Our review starts with making sure that each complaint is fairly and thoroughly investigated. Where it is not; for example, if we feel that not enough effort was made to obtain evidence from a particular witness, we are empowered to send it back to the Internal Investigating Unit for further investigation," he wrote. "To date, every IIU report I have seen has been extensively investigated. We have been given broad access to information about any case before us."

After a preliminary review, the board then recommends whether disciplinary charges should be filed and a hearing held, Zavala wrote. The board then evaluates the evidence and makes a recommendation as to whether discipline should be imposed.

Zavala also rejected Hurst's criticism that Bigda's waiver of his hearing rights demonstrated the weakness of the board.

"Sometimes, a case is scheduled to come before us for a hearing, but the officer wishes to make a plea to resolve a disciplinary matter before a hearing occurs," Zavala wrote. "When an officer decides to resolve a case without a hearing, it shows that Springfield Police Officers do not consider the CPHB process a sham."

Zavala wrote that the board has never faced outside pressure to influence its decisions, and that Barbieri has never rejected the board's recommendation to impose discipline.

"Some voices in our community claim that the CPHB is not 'powerful' enough. In fact, the CPHB is not in need of more power," Zavala wrote. "It is in need of more respect, support and recognition from community leaders. Members put in long hours and hard work on a volunteer basis reviewing cases, hearing disputes and reaching out to the community. If the CPHB receives the support it deserves, police and community relations in Springfield will continue to improve."

The current Community Police Hearing Board is the most recent iteration of Springfield's police review system. In 2006, the city replaced the civilian police commission with a single police commissioner and an advisory civilian board.

In 2010, following beating of black motorist Melvin Jones III by Springfield police officer Jeffrey Asher, Sarno abolished the existing review board and replaced it with the CPHB, empowering the new body to issue subpoenas and make disciplinary recommendations.

Sarno amended his executive order this year to improve the CPHB's public disclosure, after MassLive reported in January that the board had never met its requirement to disclose its activities every quarter and had not issued a report in nearly two years. Since then, the board had put out summaries of its quarterly case load and the city has released periodic lists of reviewed incidents.